Madras High Court
Minor Ajithkumar @ ... vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 11 September, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13526 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 29.08.2023
Delivered on 11.09.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13526 of 2023
1.Minor Ajithkumar @ Veeralakshmanan
2.Minor Vallarasu
3.Lakshmi
4.Minor Saravanan ... Petitioners/
Accused Nos.1 to 4
Vs.
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Sattur Division, Sattur,
Virudhunagar District.
2. The Inspect of Police,
Ealayirampannai Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.89/2023) ... 1st & 2nd Respondents/
Complainants
2. Thangadurai ... 2nd Respondent /
Defacto complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records relating to the FIR
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13526 of 2023
in Crime No.89 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent police and
quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1
Mr.S.Sathya Chithambaram for R2
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking quashment of First
Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.89 of 2023 on the file of the first
respondent police.
2. The case of the prosecution is that when the petitioners returned
back to their home, the defacto complainant's dog chased them and that
they fell down from the vehicle and thereby a wordy quarrel erupted
between them, wherein it is alleged that the petitioners have degraded the
defacto complainant by using his caste name. In this regard, a case was
registered against the petitioners in Crime No.89 of 2023 for the offences
punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC r/w. Section 4 of the
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Section 3(1)
(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13526 of 2023
3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners/accused as well as the third respondent/defacto complainant
that the parties have compromised the disputes between them amicably
before the High Court Legal Services Committee attached to this Court
and the settlement agreement duly signed by the parties and also by their
respective counsel has been filed before this Court. However, the
question is whether this Court can permit the petitioners to compromise
and basing on such compromise, whether the criminal case against the
petitioner in Crime No.89 of 2023 can be quashed.
4. In the case of Ramgopal and Ors. v. The State of Madhya
Pradesh, reported in 2021 (6) CTC 240, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India reiterated the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-
compoundable offences. The relevant paragraphs read as under:-
"18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that plenary
jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under
Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by
ordinary statutory provisions. It is also noteworthy that even
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13526 of 2023
in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482
Cr.P.C. conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate
and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction
exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces
this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal
proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing
so, due regard must be given to the overarching objective of
sentencing in the criminal justice system, which is grounded
on the sub-lime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the
collective and that the rationale of placing an individual
behind bars is aimed at his reformation.
19. We thus sumup and hold that as opposed to
Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by
the compromise between the parties in respect of offences
‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extra-
ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds
of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such
powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in
the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13526 of 2023
mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious
of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii)
Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and
the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to
and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or
other relevant considerations."
5. In another case in Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
reported in AIR 2021 SC 5228, the Hon'ble Apex Court while quashing
the proceedings registered under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, held as
under:-
"18. We may hasten to add that in cases such as the
present, the Courts ought to be even more vigilant to ensure
that the complainant victim has entered into the compromise
on the volition of his/her free will and not on account of any
duress. It cannot be understated that since members of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe belong to the weaker
sections of our country, they are more prone to acts of
coercion, and therefore ought to be accorded a higher level
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13526 of 2023
of protection. If the Courts find even a hint of compulsion or
force, no relief can be given to the accused party. What
factors the Courts should consider, would depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case.
19. Having considered the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case in light of the aforestated
principles, as well as having meditated on the application for
compromise, we are inclined to invoke the powers
under Article 142 and quash the instant Criminal
proceedings with the sole objective of doing complete
justice between the parties before us. We say so for the
reasons that: Firstly, the very purpose behind Section 3(1)(x)
of the SC/ST is to deter castebased insults and intimidations
when they are used with the intention of demeaning a victim
on account of he/she belonging to the Scheduled Caste/
Scheduled Tribe community. In the present case, the record
manifests that there was an undeniable preexisting civil
dispute between the parties. The case of the Appellant, from
the very beginning, has been that the alleged abuses were
uttered solely on account of frustration and anger over the
pending dispute. Thus, the genesis of the deprecated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13526 of 2023
incident was the aforestated civil/property dispute.
Considering this aspect, we are of the opinion that it would
not be incorrect to categorise the occurrence as one being
overarchingly private in nature, having only subtle
undertones of criminality, even though the provisions of a
special statute have been attracted in the present case.
Secondly, the offence in question, for which the
Appellant has been convicted, does not appear to exhibit his
mental depravity. The aim of the SC/ST Act is to protect
members of the downtrodden classes from atrocious acts of
the upper strata of the society. It appears to us that although
the Appellant may not belong to the same caste as the
Complainant, he too belongs to the relatively
weaker/backward section of the society and is certainly not
in any better economic or social position when compared to
the victim. Despite the rampant prevalence of segregation in
Indian villages whereby members of the Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe community are forced to restrict their
quarters only to certain areas, it is seen that in the present
case, the Appellant and the Complainant lived in adjoining
houses. Therefore, keeping in mind the socioeconomic
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13526 of 2023
status of the Appellant, we are of the opinion that the
overriding objective of the SC/ST Act would not be
overwhelmed if the present proceedings are quashed.
Thirdly, the incident occurred way back in the year 1994.
Nothing on record indicates that either before or after the
purported compromise, any untoward incident had
transpired between the parties. The State Counsel has also
not brought to our attention any other occurrence that would
lead us to believe that the Appellant is either a repeat
offender or is unremorseful about what transpired. Fourthly,
the Complainant has, on her own free will, without any
compulsion, entered into a compromise and wishes to drop
the present criminal proceedings against the accused.
Fifthly, given the nature of the offence, it is immaterial that
the trial against the Appellant had been concluded.
Sixthly, the Appellant and the Complainant parties
are residents of the same village and live in very close
proximity to each other. We have no reason to doubt that the
parties themselves have voluntarily settled their differences.
Therefore, in order to avoid the revival of healed wounds,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13526 of 2023
and to advance peace and harmony, it will be prudent to
effectuate the present settlement.
20. Consequently, and for the aforementioned
reasons, we find it appropriate to invoke our powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution and quash the criminal
proceedings to do complete justice between the parties. As a
sequel thereto, judgment and orders passed by the Trial
Court and the High Court are set aside. Bail bonds, if any,
are discharged. The appeal is allowed in above terms."
6. The High Court Legal Services Committee attached to this
Court was directed to verify the identities of the defacto complainant and
the accused with reference to the acceptable identity cards like Aadhar
Card etc. and also make an informal inquiry as to whether the defacto
complainant has been accepting for compromise voluntarily.
Accordingly, the Officer incharge of the High Court Legal Services
Committee/ Registrar (Judicial) sent a report after verifying their
identities.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13526 of 2023
7. The offences alleged against the petitioners by the defacto
complainant are under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC r/w. Section 4
of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Section
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act. It is not the case of the defacto
complainant that there were disputes between them earlier. There were
no any animosity between them earlier to this incident and the alleged
incident developed at the spur of the moment when they fell down from
their vehicle while the dog was chasing them. In case if trial is
conducted, the defacto complainant and others required to appear before
the Court to give evidence against the petitioners thereby irrespective of
the fact whether the petitioners or the defacto complainant, the animosity
between them will continue. When both parties are coming together to
resolve the disputes amicably and wanted to compromise the criminal
case and when it is not on account of coercion and undue influence, this
Court is of the opinion that the compromise can be recorded in order to
meed the complete justice. Accordingly, this compromise is recorded.
8. In view of the the settlement arrived between the parties, this
Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13526 of 2023
the matter pending and inclined to quash all further proceedings in Crime
No. 89 of 2023 pending on the file of the first respondent police.
9. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
entire proceedings in Crime No.89 of 2023, pending on the file of the
first respondent police is hereby quashed. The compromise memo is
recorded and the same shall form part of this order.
11.09.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
PKN
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13526 of 2023
To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Sattur Division, Sattur,
Virudhunagar District.
2. The Inspect of Police,
Ealayirampannai Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13526 of 2023
DR.D.NAGARJUN,J
PKN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13526 of 2023
Dated: 11.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
